Only two weeks after his soft-shoe testimony on the progress of the war in Afghanistan,
22 people are killed in riots and demonstrations over the staged burning
of a Quran by Florida pastor Terry Jones. Ironically, Jones burned the Muslim holy book on March 20, about the same time Petraeus
was wrapping up his sales pitch on Capitol Hill, though it received
no real press until more than a week later, when the riots began April
1 in Mazar-i-Sharif, a northern city that has been hailed in the past
as one of the safest in the country.

Incidentally, it wasn’t until Afghan
president and U.S. “partner” Hamid Karzai started fanning the flames by issuing a press release on March 24 condemning
Jones’ actions as a “crime against a religion and entire Muslim
ummah [community],”and said the U.S. and UN should “bring
to justice the perpetrators,” that things started to rage.
He also gave a speech mouthing similar exhortations on March 31.

A day later, university students in
Mazar-i-Sharif went through with a planned street protest against the
book-burning. Reports
now suggest
that current and even former Taliban who had supposedly switched
loyalties to work with the U.S. were ultimately responsible, along with
extremist mullahs and sympathizers in the city, for whipping up the
largely peaceful crowd, which eventually overran the local UN compound
there, killing three UN staff members and four Nepalese guards. Five
Afghan civilians were killed when local police fired on the crowd and
at least twenty more were wounded.

It was the first in five straight days
of demonstrations and rioting in several population centers across Afghanistan,
including volatile Kandahar in the south—where 10 more people died
on April 2—and the capital city of Kabul. One egregious act by a
media-hungry Gainesville pastor with a flock of thirty has presumably
led to what is emerging as a very public backlash against the West and
its occupying forces, evidence by the routine burning of the American
flag and of President Obama in effigy during the protests. As
described in The New York Times, the speeches made by the mullahs
in Mazar-i-Sharif just before the brutal attack on the UN workers not
only condemned the desecration of the Quran, but called “for jihad
and death for infidels and Jews.”

Though the news was naturally subsumed
by other headlines in the U.S.—Libya, the budget battle on Capitol
Hill (the mainstream media typically won’t focus on more than two
or three big headlines at a time)—one got the sense the press was
fairly stunned by the ferocity of the violence against the UN workers
and the speed at which it all had happened. It had gotten spanked for
giving Jones too much airtime when he had merely threatened
to burn the Quran last
summer. Now that he had actually gone through with it and is serving
as the gasoline with which every dry, brittle branch of progress in
Afghanistan is seeming to catch fire, the mainstream media appears reticent
at best to give it the full treatment—like, how did such a small
man do such big damage in a place where we are supposedly making “progress”?

So, the violence has been tamped down,
for now. Peaceful demonstrations are continuing, however, the latest in Khost, an eastern city near the border with Pakistan,
where several hundred university students marched on Saturday, demanding
in signs written in English, that the U.S. “bring to justice that infidel
who burned and desecrated our holy book.”

Protest in Khost

The protests have certainly exposed
a number of critical weaknesses in what Petraeus just described a month ago as the war’s “upward trajectory” in favor of the U.S.
and its allies on the ground. Foremost, it underscores the military’s
lack of control over the shifting dynamics there. The attack in Mazar
came within 10 days of an announcement that security in the city, along
with several other provinces and towns, would
start to “transition”
to Afghan from ISAF (International Security Assistance Forces) control
this summer.

Petraeus reportedly
visited Mazar after the attack
and tried to dismiss fears that his Afghan security partners were not
ready. “We’ve looked hard at that and that is not the case,”
he told reporters in Kabul. “Our sense is that individuals likely
from outside the area… took advantage of the situation, hijacked it,
an emotionally charged moment, and the result was terrible violence.”

But as The New
York Times reported Saturday, the provocateurs and perpetrators
were hardly “outsiders” but local Mullahs, Taliban sympathizers,
even guys the U.S. thought had renounced the Taliban and were now working
with them. Taken together, they all conspire to undercut the general’s
carefully crafted narrative—that the enemy is on the run.

Petraeus and his Muddy Fine Line

The thrust of Petraeus’ testimony
before Congress last month was that the Afghans are closer than ever
to taking control over their own country. The resources and training,
as well as security gains by U.S. forces, are finally paying off:

“The hard-fought achievements in
2010 and early 2011 have enabled the Joint Afghan-NATO Transition Board
to recommend initiation this spring of transition to Afghan lead in
several provinces,” Petraeus
testified. But there is
always a caveat:

“Our core objective is, of course,
ensuring that Afghanistan does not once again become a sanctuary for
Al Qaeda. Achieving that objective requires that we help Afghanistan
develop sufficient capabilities to secure and govern itself. And that
effort requires the execution of the comprehensive civil-military effort
on which we are now embarked.”

His message strategy here is clear.
He must convince the purse-string holders that there is enough progress
happening so they feel compelled to give him more money to go forward
on his own terms. It is no secret that the Pentagon is engaged in an
active battle
of wills with the White
House over the July deadline for withdrawal, particularly over the number
of troops that will be sent home. It’s in his interest to convince
the congress that a big withdrawal would be detrimental to the future
success of the mission, while at the same time highlighting the positive
(no matter how arguable) so that members don’t lose faith, or worse,
succumb to American public opinion, which is now full-on against continuing
the occupation.

It’s a fine line, and the recent
protests and killings have muddied it more than a little.

These recent developments suggest quite
graphically that the Taliban has more influence than Petraeus and his
generals have let on, not to mention that it’s been the most violent winter ever
for our troops in Afghanistan.
Reports that non-Taliban Afghans are now engaged in violent anti-American
demonstrations that are being broadcast all over the world make our
10-year campaign there feel more futile by the day.

While the protests seem to be dying
down, they’ve left a mark on Afghanistan. The protests brought a growing
anti-foreigner sentiment to the surface that may increase support for
the insurgency or, at the very least, put renewed pressure on foreign
forces to reduce their presence here.

IPS reporter and Antiwar.com regular Gareth Porter tells us,
“there is nothing new about anti-American protests over desecration
of the Quran…you can find examples of similar demonstrations in past
years” merely by combing the WikiLeaks “Afghan
War Diary.” The media
up to now has just chosen to ignore it. True, but this time Karzai got
involved in a big way, which forced responses from President Obama and
Gen. Petraeus. Now there seems to be a renewed interest in what many
devoted Afghan Muslims are saying and listening to. According to a Reuters report on Sunday, they aren’t exactly praying for
our Godspeed:

Enayatullah Balegh is a professor
at Kabul University and preaches on Fridays in the largest mosque in
central Kabul, where he advocates jihad, or holy war, against foreigners
who desecrate Islam.

After a fundamentalist U.S. pastor
presided over the burning of a copy of the Koran last month, there has
been a growing perception among ordinary people that many of the foreigners
in Afghanistan belong
in just one category: the infidels. …

“I tell my students to wage
jihad against all foreigners who desecrate our religious values. We
have had enough.”

Protests in Kabul against the Koran-burning
have not become violent but there are many other mullahs in the overcrowded
capital whose sermons are filled with criticism of the foreigners fighting
and working in Afghanistan.

Raising an effective Afghan Army to
fight the Taliban has been difficult enough. Never knowing what spark
is going to set the powder keg off, where and on whom, is another. The
more flag burnings and signs demanding our withdrawal they see, the
more restless and resentful the American people become over our continued
obligations there.

“In deciding to intervene with
large numbers of general purpose forces from the US and Europe, we created
conditions leading to mutual hatred and suspicion between the Muslim
Peoples in Afghanistan and Iraq and our unwanted foreign presence,”
said retired
Army Col. Doug Macgregor
in an email to Antiwar.com “It is stupid and it should end.”

What Is Karzai Up To?

Ostensibly, that is what Karzai wants,
too, for it to end. At least he’s said as much in recent weeks, urging
NATO in an emotional speech to “stop their operations in
our land,” after the
accidental deaths of nine children in a recent NATO air strike.

At least one American source of mine
working in Kabul suggests the public condemnation of Jones and the Quran
burning was calculated to gain trust with members of the Taliban with
whom Karzai is interested in negotiating an eventual peace deal (this could
diverge with what the U.S. military wants, which is to presumably hold
off on talks until coalition forces are in a greater position of strength).

“Karzai is pandering to the masses
and trying to bring the Taliban in from the cold—certain elements.
More and more Afghans I’m finding are beginning to warm to Karzai and
it has nothing to do with anti-Americanism,” my source in Kabul insisted.
“It has to do with a tacit understanding that if there’s to be peace,
then it must be structured around certain groups like Haqqani coming
into the government.”

“I think Karzai has been laying the
groundwork for reconciliation with the Taliban for years. He knows they
will continue to constitute the strongest and most coherent organization
in the country as NATO begins its exodus,” added Porter, who suggested
last month in
a report that the military
may be purposefully scuttling high-level talks by building an indefinite
troop presence in Afghanistan beyond 2014 anyway.

The military has instead talked up “reintegrating” the Taliban, or really, using carrots to bring them over
to their side, much like the Sunni “Sons of Iraq,” who have been
credited with turning the tide against al Qaeda in Iraq. The Afghan
efforts have had mixed
results at best—if the
April 9 New York Times article was correct, some of those “reintegrated
Taliban” may have been responsible for the murder of our UN peacekeepers.

Discerning motive behind Karzai’s behavior
is speculative of course. But it’s clear that second
biggest weakness the riots have exposed—or rather, reaffirmed in
bold primary colors—is the slippery nature of the Afghan president,
and his tenuous, awkward relationship with Washington, which has
certainly deteriorated
under the Obama Administration. Both seem to be working at cross-purposes
most of the time, and the riots in Mazar seem to be the latest, greatest
example of Karzai pushing Washington’s buttons. And push it did.

It is very difficult not to conclude
that Karzai chose to pursue a path of deadly controversy to demonstrate
his strategic independence from the very country that continues to pay
the vast majority of all of his bills while his coterie of supporters
loot his country’s coffers. According to the recently downsized U.S.
defense budget, American taxpayers will still pay about $300 million per day for
the military effort
in Afghanistan alone. For all operations in the country, the
United States is expected to spend about $17 billion in Fiscal
Year 2011 alone. …

At some point, we need to ask how
it is possible to justify squandering such life and treasure on Karzai
when he time and time again undermines his own and our interests. How
can we continue to support a man who is willing to stoke the flames
of violence in his own country for his own, deeply personal political
gains.

This would seem to be the crux of the
situation. Events like the Mazar murders only underscore our lack of
control—and maybe that is exactly what Karzai was up to when he
fanned those flames. But considering the millions of dollars a day,
not to mention the blood spilled on both sides, this is a game that
Americans are increasingly unwilling to play, no matter what Gen. Petraeus
might be selling on Capitol Hill.

The thought occurs (re the Christine Fair quotes).. that if "we" weren't there at all it would cost us nothing. Aha! But you and I know "we" would still be there, so clearly it isn't about money at all. After all, it's public money, ie public debt to a few trillionaire bankers. This of course exposes a flaw in the thinking of certain professional haters-of-the-very-idea-of-government.. that being the curious myth that it is government (meaning of course elected governments) that is the cause of all our grief. This oddly avoids seeing that an oligarchy of superwealthy "corporatists" (actually bankers and rent-seekers) IS very definately a form of government.. but one that is absolutely uncontrollable even in theory. Can you imagine for one second that sans (elected) government "we" would pull in our horns and desist from bombing and invading all over the place? Or would the oligarchs continue to destroy the vibrancy of the economy so as to force our young people into a "privatised" military system so as to continue the imperialism of the financiers?

bogi666

What you may be referring to is an extra government system of unelected plutocrats, privatized government if you will, not burdened with being elected as the the unelected plutocrats present the American public with candidates to run for elective office office and bribed to do the bidding of the few, the unelected plutocrats of the extra government system which reaps the benefits from the proceeds of the forced contributions, withholding taxes, to be doled out under the guise of privatization which facilitates graft and corruption because being privatized it is unaccountable without transparency.

avatar singh

so according to you karzai was inflamming and mouthing undendesirable things when the ocupier americans wereburnign thier holy book./ no doubt you americans need to be tortured to death nothing less is suitable for you evil people.

avatar singh

quote"According to the recently downsized U.S. defense budget, American taxpayers will still pay about $300 million per day for the military effort in Afghanistan alone. " you are occupying a country and not spending that money to benefit the afgan people. why dol you not get out and world shoudl demand compensation for all the pghysical and real damage that you did to afgan state and people. you americans are real evil ncarnate when you think that afgan owe you to stay in thier land fdor ever . get out of thewre you swine bastards!

johnc

The whole Koran thing has a Hill-&-Knowelton smell about it. I guess I'm jaded.

Hexexis

>>>The media up to now has just chosen to ignore it.<<< "Media … have" I'll wager this was the edit of some earnest but ignorant neophyte of the Michelle Bachmann persuasion in the typesetting dept.

eric siverson

There does not seem to be multiculturualism coming from the Islamic side . Even the U.S. soldiers burnt thier holy bibles to show the muslims they were on thier side . But the muslims counter acted one radical burning a Holy Koran thousands of miles away , with cold blooded murder of hundreds of non muslims . The U.S. is going to have a difficult time working with these people .

Jtc

Good article. I don't think 2/3s of the America public constitutes "full-on" support of withdrawal, though.

Kelley Beaucar Vlahos, a Washington, D.C.-based freelance writer, is a longtime
political reporter for FoxNews.com and
a contributing editor at The American Conservative.
She is also a Washington correspondent for Homeland Security Today magazine. Her Twitter account is @KelleyBVlahos.